GBurns

I suggest a good read of the Worksheet and related material. Being paid by the "Leasing Company" does not, by itself, make them "leased employees". XYZ seems to be the common law employer and the "Leasing Company" could just be the payroll agent. It could be that you should determine "Who's the Employer?" first.

It does not matter that "everything was done right" nor that it was "operated as the document dictates", if the rationale etc was wrong in the first place. I noted that you did not opine on the issue of compliance with the IRC or Treas Regs. I do not agree that the IRS is backtracking because I have not seen where they ever approved those ideas. What I have seen are unsubstantiated claims of approval and claims of approval but for a different plan design. Have you compared your design to what was alllegedly approved ?

What do you mean by "foreign corporation" ? For example let us say Bayern AG, a German corporation, cannot just start business in the US with US employees, as it feels. It has to register in a state etc and get an IRS EIN number etc etc. No one is able to just start doing business when, where or how they feel, foreign or US.

I think that someone is trying to con us. There has to be some pork. And the biting of tongue, while possibly being "other white meat" will not suffice for some.

Are you sure that the ER cost is being run through the payroll system ? I do not recall ever haviing seen any "column" or otherwise which could be used for such a purpose. Also, How do they determine how much for each particular employee ?

I do not think that I am understanding your post, but from what I see, IMHO, billing a secondary payer for anything other than $40 (1,000 - (800 + 160) = 40) seems fraudulent. I fact, I do not think that the employee should be even billed until all other payers have paid, otherwise it should be questionable ( possibly also illegal/unlawful) balance billing, at the least.

Just because a VEBA is a Trust does not make it comparable to a 419(e) plan or trust. Do not let to coincidental appearance of the word "trust" mislead you. It is not acceptable in a section 125 plan simply because it is not listed, nor for a qualified benefit. The benefits in 419(e) plans are deferred benefits. Usually, in my experience, 419(e) plans are employer funded.. There is no employyee contribution, so pre-taxing by the employee is not a consideration.

Section 125 has a very limited list of qualified benefits for which compensation can be pre-taxed. Is the contribution for one of these?

What sort of "retirement plan" are you talking about ? Are these employees on a US governed/regulated payroll ?

To make sure that your question is correctly understood, What do you mean by "occur timely"?

An article is subject to space and topic limitations, and therfore cannot cover every aspect of its topic and definitely cannot cover related issues. The article was about 401(k) and not about retirement in general.

I see nothing in that law that states "when part of" anything. The law coovers both group and individual plans and also covers insurers issuing such coverage. Dental and Vison coverage are health plans just as is medical coverage. If I were you, I would not put much stock iin any 1 "Compliance Alert", but would look at a few for general conscensus, then read the actual law itself, it is only a few pages long.

Why do you not regard Dental and Vision as being health plans ? What coverage does your employee health plan provide ? Medical only?

Who will be paying the premium? Is there an employee share or will the entire premum be paid by the employer?

I am curious. Where can I get a brochure etc ? You might want to reply via the private message feature, just in case you do not want to appear to be promoting for the vendor.

What's the hurry ? Is there some special reason for concern or anxiety?

What happens if after another few years you (or someone else) discover that your recalculation was erroneous? If you made a mistake then, you could be making a mistake now. How can you be sure of what amount they might have negotiated or compromised? It could have been for less than $10 million, couldn't it ? In any case, Is bankruptcy and subsequent restart of the business, all that bad or unusual? It seems that some "big business" does it very often. How many times have we heard bankruptcy and Trump being associated ? Airlines ? Chrysler? Asbestos using companies ? etc. It is not the end of the world, it is only a minor blip.

When last I looked, it was not Primerica doing the advising, it was their Broker Dealer which at that time was Smith Barney. It also could be provided by any one of the investment providers they represent such as MetLife, Pioneer, Invesco, Legg Mason, Van Kampen etc.

Wouldn't the reimbursement by the employer cause the policies and the arrangement to fall under the Small Group health insurance and "list billing" laws? I think that most carriers would not issue if this was known or is found out.

The article mentioned by bobolink is at www.benefitnews.com http://ebn.benefitnews.com/ebn_issues/3_10/ http://ebn.benefitnews.com/ebn_issues/3_10/

If the Dr prescribes 20mg x 30, How is the person going to get 40mg tablets ? I doubt that there are any Pharmacists who would change the specifics of the prescription. Also, splitting a tablet is not advised. The manufacturers have stated that there is no guarantee that the active ingrdients are evenly distributed throughout any tablet or capsule. Would you be willing to accept the liability for the patient not receiving the required dosage because you mandated splitting and which splitting caused the medicatioon not to work ?

Who is the employer ? Which EIN goes on her W2 etc ? Which company reports her on the state Quarterly employment return ? The fact that she splits her time might be irrelevant, she might just be an employee of the parent company. Does the parent also pay the other employees of the siister corporations ?

Thanks. Now I see it. It should create some difficult situations for both underwriting and claims. It seems that an individual could do a "run around" and hide either a pre-existing condition or a new catastrophic illness/disease until they have set the conditions in their favor. It appears that you could do something like hiding a HIV positive result by paying for the testing etc in full out-of-pocket and seal the results etc. In response to your question, I would say that if employer funds are the source for the payment, then no. Which would then eliminate HRAs. For an employee funds only FSA, I doubt it because in order to satisfy section 125 etc, the employee funds are treated as employer funds. For an employee funds only HSA, I would have to research before opining. In all cases where there are both employee and employer funds, I would think no, because the comingling would make it impossible to separate. I am surprised that more is not being made of the issue.

Considering that if the stimulus bill really says what you say that it does, it would/could create some serious problems for claims administrators etc. So I wonder why there have been no responses. I have not been able to find any reference to what you stated, in any of the many reviews/commmentaries/newsletters/clent alerts etc that have been published by the law firms and other benennfits coonsultants. So I have to wonder if either they all overlooked it or it is just of no importance. I have browsed through all 407 pages of ARRA and could find no mention of such an item.. Maybe I overloked it. Can you give a more precise cite ?

Where in which stimulus bill did you see this? Since there is more than 1 healthcare reform bill, and no one knows what will eventuallly pass, if anything,, Why be concerned at this point about what is in a stimulus bill rather than a healthcare reform bill ?